DEMOCRATS BELIEVE TAX INCREASES EQUAL FISCAL DISCIPLINE

The Democrat No-Budget Road To Out-Of-Control Spending Is Paved With Budget Deficits And Tax Increases

GREENSPAN ON FISCAL RESPONSIBILITY: "History suggests that an abandonment of fiscal discipline will eventually push up interest rates, crowd out capital spending, lower productivity growth and force harder choices upon us in the future."
(Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan quoted by Joseph Guinto, "Greenspan Warns Of Runaway Deficits, But Rejects Efforts To Repeal Tax Cuts," Investor's Business Daily, September 13, 2002)

GREENSPAN ON LOWER TAXES: "And should current economic weakness spread beyond what now appears likely, having a tax cut in place may, in fact, do noticeable good."
(Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan, Senate Budget Committee, Testimony, January 25, 2001, www.federalreserve.gov, Accessed September 12, 2002)

THE NEW YORK TIMES CALLED SENATOR TOM DASCHLE'S (D-SD) BUDGET PERFORMANCE "SHAKY." "Mr. Daschle's performance in the spotlight has been shaky. He failed to round up the votes to pass a bill providing prescription drugs for the elderly. He could not win passage of an overall budget resolution to set spending levels for the fiscal year that begins Oct. 1. The worst part, for him, was that these defeats came as much at the hands of Democrats as Republicans."
(Editorial, "Congress's Mixed Handiwork," The New York Times, August 3, 2002)

THE FISCALLY IRRESPONSIBLE DEMOCRAT SENATE IS UNABLE AND UNWILLING TO PASS A BUDGET

In 1998, North Dakota Democrat Senator Kent Conrad Described Passing A Budget Resolution As A Congressional "Responsibility." "We have no budget resolution passed by this Congress. For the first time in 24 years, there has been a failure to pass a budget resolution. That budget resolution was due by April 15. The President plays no role in a budget resolution; that is the responsibility of this Congress. . . . It is purely the responsibility of this Senate and the House of Representatives, and these bodies have failed in their responsibility, and they have failed for the first time in 24 years."
(Senator Conrad, Congressional Record, October 12, 1998)

Senator Daschle Promised A Budget Earlier This Year. "Well, we're going to have a budget plan that constrains spending. That will happen. . . . [W]e are going to get to it. That is going to be something that will happen."
(NBC's "Meet The Press," May 26, 2002)

As Of September 13, 2002, The Democrat Senate Still Had Not Approved A Budget, In Violation Of The Budget Enforcement Act Of 1974.
(S.Con.Res. 100, Approved By Budget Committee, April 11, 2002)

Daschle Blamed Lack Of Budget On A Razor-Thin Majority. "[O]bviously we're in a divided Senate and a very, very close membership count. And this has not been easy."
(NBC's "Meet The Press," May 26, 2002)

DNC Chairman McAuliffe Said The Democrats Need "Nine More United States Senators" To Pass A Budget. "[W]e could pass a budget. We need 60 votes for a budget. . . . [G]ive us nine more United States Senators. . . and we can have a budget."
(CBS' "Face The Nation," September 1, 2002)

The Republicans Passed A Bipartisan Budget When The Senate Was 50-50. The budget resolution established congressional spending for fiscal year 2002, revised the FY2001 budget, and set spending levels for fiscal years 2003 through 2011. Fifteen Democrats joined with Republicans to pass the resolution by a vote of 65-35. At the time, the Senate was divided 50-50 (with Vice President Cheney giving the Republicans a majority).
(H.Con.Res. 83, Roll Call #86: Passed 65-35: R 50-0; D 15-35, April 6, 2001)

NO BUDGET MEANS DASCHLE'S DEMOCRAT SENATE HAS A GREEN LIGHT FOR OUT-OF-CONTROL SPENDING AND BALLOONING DEFICITS

Spending Responsibility Goes "Out The Window" Unless A New Budget Is Passed Before October. "Less than a month before an Oct. 1 deadline, Congress has passed exactly zero of the 13 required spending bills. The Senate, for the first time in years, has not even adopted a budget. . . . Without a budget and the rules that go with it, the door could be opened to a flurry of sticky Senate legislative fights. . . . The House adopted a budget figure of $759 billion for the fiscal year 2002-2003, which starts on Oct. 1. While the Senate has not adopted a budget plan . . . ."
(Carl Hulse, "As Deadline Nears, Congress Slogs In A Fiscal Quagmire," The New York Times, September 4, 2002)

The Democrat Plan For Economic Growth Is Increased Spending And Higher Taxes. "While Senate Democrats have failed to pass a budget, they have endorsed several trillion dollars in additional spending beyond what President Bush requested, which would increase the debt and guarantee permanent deficits. Some Democrats have even proposed raising taxes, but as our economy is struggling and many Americans are out of work, raising taxes is exactly the wrong thing to do. Additionally, eliminating last year's tax relief would not solve the short term deficit problem, but would raise taxes on low and middle-income workers."
(The White House, "CBO Budget Update Confirms Fiscal Restraint," August 2002)

The End Of The Sixty Vote Threshold Means Democrats Are Free To Spend Without Restraint Or Bipartisan Support. "Unless the Senate takes action, some of the rules governing Senate budget procedures, including this 60-vote requirement (called a 'supermajority' to distinguish it from the 'simple majority') on certain issues, will expire October 1, 2002. . . ." As of October 1, 2002, the 60-vote points of order requirement can be waived with only a simple majority vote. This includes budget resolutions and "legislation that would increase total spending above the levels in the most recent budget resolution. . . ."
(OMB Watch Website, www.ombwatch.org, July 31, 2002)

Greenspan Supports The Preservation Of The Budget Rules To Prevent Budget Deficits. "The budget enforcement rules are set to expire on September the 30th. Failing to preserve them would be a grave mistake, in my judgment. For without clear direction and constructive goals, the inbuilt political bias in favor of budget deficits likely will again become entrenched. We are all too aware that government spending programs and special tax benefits can be easy to initiate or expand but extraordinarily difficult to trim or shut down . . . The bottom line, Mr. Chairman, is that if we do not preserve the budget rules and reaffirm our commitment to fiscal responsibility, years of hard effort could be squandered."
(Alan Greenspan, House Budget Committee, Testimony, September 12, 2002)

DEMOCRATS PLAN A "DECEMBER SURPRISE" OF HIGHER TAXES AND OUT-OF-CONTROL SPENDING

House Minority Leader Dick Gephardt (D-MO) Thinks It Would Be A "Mistake" To Reveal The Democrats' Economic Strategy. "I think we make a mistake if we announce ahead of such a possible meeting what are our bottom lines or what we think ought to be done. . . . We need a different kind of meeting to come up with a new [economic] policy that will move us in the right direction."
(CNN's "Inside Politics," August 13, 2002)

Instead Of Answering Tim Russert's Question On Freezing The Tax Cuts, Representative Nita Lowey (D-NY) Called For An Economic Summit To "Talk." Russert asked Lowey, "[S]hould the Democrats be in favor of freezing the Bush tax cut?" Lowey responded, "[W]hat Dick Gephardt and I and others have called for is an economic summit . . . . We should get Democrats, Republicans together, have a bipartisan summit to talk about the economy, to talk about a budget. It can't be 'one way, my way, and that's what we're going to do.'"
(NBC's "Meet The Press," September 1, 2002)

Representative Adam Smith (D-WA) Wants All Options "On The Table." "We've asked for a meeting with the President where everything is 'on the table,' and we're ready to go to work on getting our economy back in shape."
(New Democrat Coalition, Press Release, July 16, 2002)

Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan Credited Republican Tax Relief For Spurring Increases In Household Spending. "Household spending was boosted by ongoing increases in incomes, which in turn were spurred by strong advances in productivity as well as by legislated tax reductions and, in recent months, by extended unemployment insurance benefits."
(Alan Greenspan, Senate Banking, Housing, And Urban Affairs Committee, Testimony, July 16, 2002)

The Congressional Budget Office Reported That The Past Economic Recession, Not Republican Tax Relief, Put The Federal Budget Back In Deficit. "CBO reported August 13th that 80% of the change in revenue projections for FY 2002 was due to economic and technical changes, not tax relief. OMB agrees that a continued sluggish recovery could cause receipts to decline even further in future years than recently projected in the Mid Session Review. CBO's numbers also show that if there never had been a tax cut, the budget would still be in deficit today."
(Congressional Budget Office, "Budget And Economic Update," August 2002)

The Congressional Budget Office Projects A $1 Trillion Surplus And Brightening Fiscal Picture In The Near Future. "We can return to surpluses in a few years by sustaining economic growth and following the President's fiscal discipline: fully fund the war on terror and homeland security while slowing spending growth in the rest of government. Like OMB, CBO projects an improving budget picture with a very slight deficit in FY 2005 and a return to balance in FY 2006, but only if spending is restrained."
(Congressional Budget Office, Budget And Economic Update, August 2002)

The Council Of Economic Advisers Describes Tax Relief As An Important Tool For Raising Personal Savings, Attracting Business Development And Creating Jobs. "Reduced tax rates raise workers' take home pay, facilitating household purchases of housing and autos, raising saving[s], and aiding entrepreneurs. Business expensing makes it more attractive for businesses to invest and create jobs."
(CEA, Economic Forum Talking Points, August 12, 2002)

Council Of Economic Advisers Chairman Glenn Hubbard Argues That Repealing Republican Tax Relief Will Hurt Future Economic Growth. "If we rescinded the President's tax cut, we would probably hurt economic growth by about 2/10 of a percentage point over the foreseeable future. That's $1,000 for every man, woman and child in the country over a decade."
(CBS' "Face The Nation," August 18, 2002)

"TOSS OUT THE DASCHLE/CLINTON OBSTRUCTIONISTS DEMOCRATS!"

Excellent.
The names of Daschle and Gephardt should NEVER appear alone without the name, "Clinton" linked to 'em.
~Ever.

Just as repeating the phrase "Tax & Spend" might just result in drilling the *concept* into the cement filled craniums what these Liberal-Socialist 'Rats are really all about?

There's the satisfaction & added benefit of siezinging back our language through the use of these & other various words & phrases that were hijacked in the recent past, too.

So, even if the 'Rats have figured out a majority of the nation's populace has a mentality capable of only comprehending short phrases & sound bites??
Fine.
That's a gate which swings both ways.

I suggest in addition to the other hot button words & phrases a conscious effort be made to begin using a title I've made a habit of using, each & every time I must describe the 'Rat even if it "is" some extra typing...

-LIBERAL-SOCIALIST-

By calling something precisely what it is, one never lies.
So let us all see how the Liberal-Socialist(s) deals with the light; as, we put them on the defensive.

...for a change.

Komrade Daschle is a liar and a TAX and SPEND thief. For the life of me I don't understand how the good people of S Dakota can continue to send this piece o' $hit to Washington.

From a 1/28/02 USA Today article...

More public Daschle finds image falters
WASHINGTON — One of the more crucial developments of the Bush era is how Senate Democratic Leader Tom Daschle has been introduced to the American people.
Beltway journalists and pundits often describe Daschle as a mild-mannered, hard-working Middle Westerner (some Dakotans draw the distinction from Midwesterner), but his image is evolving as less benevolent elsewhere around the country.
As his profile rises, so do his negatives. This has happened, in part, because he has been the head of the loyal opposition of a popular president. Perhaps more importantly, Republicans — and conservative interest group allies with deep pockets — have been attacking him as a roadblock to George W. Bush's agenda for two months.
Daschle is in a public no-man's land. He is clearly the Democrats' chief spokesman, but not yet the party's leader to most Americans. In a Pew survey Jan. 9-13, 39 percent of Republicans viewed Daschle as the leader of the Democrats, but only 23 percent of Democrats did. The survey, which had a margin of error of plus or minus 3.5 percentage points, showed Daschle barely edging former President Clinton when Democrats were asked to name their party's leader.His favorability rating in a "Battleground" poll taken Jan. 6-8 was 35 percent, but 26 percent also said they had unfavorable opinions of him. The rest either had never heard of him or had no opinion. The poll's margin of error was plus or minus 3.1 percentage points.
President Bush's favorability was 81 percent, his unfavorability 16 percent. The ratio of good-to-bad should concern Daschle and his Democratic allies.If these trends continue, Daschle could eventually have disapproval ratings in the low- to-mid 40s. This is not Newt Gingrich territory, but neither is it anything near what Daschle would need to sustain a broad base of support against a popular president.
Republican pollster Ed Goeas, who does the bipartisan Battleground survey with Democrat Celinda Lake, said Daschle and his allies are running a credibility deficit on the economy, where they have been heavy critics of Bush in recent weeks.
The Battleground poll showed that 60 percent of voters trust Bush more than Democrats in Congress to deal with taxes, while only 26 percent like the Democrats' views on taxes more than Bush's. (Bush wants deeper tax cuts than passed last spring, while some in Daschle's party want to hold off on scheduled tax cuts in 2004).
Battleground found that Bush's advantage over Daschle and his allies on keeping America prosperous was 49-29 percent, on balancing the budget 43-26, on improving the nation's economy, 46-35. While 67 percent said they liked Bush's handling of the economy, only 39 percent liked what the Democrats were doing.
Goeas thinks Daschle was hurt by his major economic speech in early January, in which he criticized the tax cuts and a return to deficit spending.
"No one warned Tom Daschle that Democrats did not have the credibility on the economy to launch the attack in the first place," Goeas said, adding that Daschle blamed Bush's tax cut "for just about everything but the weather."
The problem for Daschle and the Democrats, Goeas maintained, is that Bush also is viewed today as a conciliator; 73 percent agreed that Bush had "made significant efforts to reach out to members of the Democratic Party," and 65 percent said Bush "has improved the tone of politics in Washington today."
Add these sentiments on top of the fact that Democrats cannot — by virtue of political tradition and national necessity — vigorously oppose Bush on the single largest aspect of his job, the war on terror, and Democrats "are in a box," Goeas said.
Democratic pollster Lake agreed to a point, but said her party does have issues to talk about this year.
"It's hard when you don't have the bully pulpit," she said. But she also pointed out that her polling showed Democrats are viewed as better able to protect the middle class, improve health care, strengthen Social Security and protect the environment.
Daschle and Democrats should focus on "how are we helping families in this recession," she said.
If today's Battleground trends hold, the Democrats' chances at taking back the House in the fall could be dashed. So, perhaps, would Daschle's presidential aspirations — if he has any. Some people are convinced he eventually will challenge Bush in 2004, but others would not be surprised if he walked away from politics altogether after his term expires in 2005.
But as a measure of how seriously he is taking his image — and the attacks on him on radio and TV — he began launching advertising this past week to defend himself in his home state.

Pay particular attention to the last sentence of the article. He's apparently having to cover his butt at home. The natives are getting restless??? Too bad he's in DC til at least '04.

In another vein:

FGS

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.